It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Spread Islam Throughout The World" The Clinton's & MVP HUMA ABEDIN (Hillary's Girl)

page: 5
80
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Bush Administration did some inexplicable things after 911.

"Who benefited from their actions?" is a valid question.

"Why was Saudi Arabia protected?" is another valid question.

There are organisations openly declaring their intention to propagandise against Western Culture.

They have plenty of Money.

Asking whether Americans Politicians took some of that money in return for influence over American Policy is perfectly reasonable.



Ah ... and now we go out to the vague and unrelated questions and musing to the topic.

OP plainly states that Huma Abedin links Hillary Clinton to 9/11, the Muslim Brotherhood, terrorism, Benghazi!, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, there is no proof of that link, and no evidence other than the most circumstantial, oh, and of course, that all Muslims are suspect.

Do you have facts linking Huma Abedin to any terrorism? That's the question here.




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Here is a link to the Saudi's support to the Clinton campaign

Former Director of National Intelligence and retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, however, spoke to Al Jazeera about this ill-fated, notorious strategical blunder. “You’re on record as saying that the handling of Syria by this administration has been a mistake. Many people would argue that the U.S. actually saw the rise of ISIL coming and turned a blind eye, or even encouraged as a counterpoint to Assad,” journalist Mehdi Hasan prefaced his query, adding, “The U.S. saw the ISIL caliphate coming and did nothing.” Flynn responded, “Yeah, I think that we — where we missed the point. I mean, where we totally blew it, I think, was in the very beginning.” Besides backing and blessings from the Saudi government for aggression on the Syrian front, dissent among U.S. officials couldn’t be more imperative in their eyes, because, as the WSJ reported: “The internal cable may be an attempt to shape the foreign policy outlook for the next administration, the official familiar with the document said. President Barack Obama has balked at taking military action against Mr. Assad, while the Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton has promised a more hawkish stance against the Syrian leader. Republican candidate Donald Trump has said he would hit Islamic State hard but has also said he would be prepared to work with Russia and Syria.” In fact, as Zero Hedge also noted, an albeit contested report from earlier this week claimed Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made comments including “a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to” Clinton’s campaign. Politicians and officials, in other words, are fast aligning a narrative touting the need to wage war with Syria in order to have it carried out by the candidate they assume will next take the White House.
theantimedia.org...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't believe the question is as simple as you suggest.

Sadly, US Foreign Policy in the Middle East looks like an example of the dangers of "Foreign Entanglements".

The degree to which an organisation dedicated "To Spreading Islam Throughout the World" has influenced the actions and policies of the US is an equally valid question.

To put this simply "Have the US been led by the nose to serve the Wahabist/Salafist agenda?"

Perhaps that is the question.




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't believe the question is as simple as you suggest.

Sadly, US Foreign Policy in the Middle East looks like an example of the dangers of "Foreign Entanglements".

The degree to which an organisation dedicated "To Spreading Islam Throughout the World" has influenced the actions and policies of the US is an equally valid question.

To put this simply "Have the US been led by the nose to serve the Wahabist/Salafist agenda?"

Perhaps that is the question.



You don't believe the question is simple? I disagree.

Is there evidence to support OP's clear, unqualified assertion about Huma Abedin or not?

OP has tossed in "everything but the kitchen sink" in order to make it look like this topic is well-researched and founded in fact. In actuality, it is not. There are no connections proven, only circumstances.

With respect you also keep tossing in these hopelessly generic and wide-ranging red herrings ... what you believe about US foreign policy is fine ... but it does not speak to these specific claims made here, to with that this thread would clearly demonstrate that through Huma Abedin, Hillary (and Bill) Clinton are directly connected to 9/11, the Muslim Brotherhood, terrorism, BENGHAZI!, etc.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
They always have a sliver of possible deniability . 2 points and links ....

CLINTON: It's pub -- it's public information that they -- that the United States government, along with allies, are looking at ways to help support the -- the moderate -- what the moderate opposition is. They are badly outnumber by both the Assad forces and the extremists. I think now, there are more than 1,000 Europeans who are fighting in Syria... AMANPOUR: Well... CLINTON: -- for the extremists... AMANPOUR: -- and I was going to ask you this, because I -- after all the reporting I've done on this and the blow-back and the back splash and all of those fears, the police commissioner of New York City summed it up the best recently, in a way that Americans can understand, that this is the most dramatic threat since 9/11 and perhaps even bigger... CLINTON: Um-hmm. AMANPOUR: -- that there could be an attack on New York and the United States in general... CLINTON: Um-hmm. AMANPOUR: -- and also around many foreign capitals. You were turned down -- your idea and your plan, with all those national security officials that you mentioned, was turned down. Do you believe that if it hadn't been, you would have been able to prevent what's happening now, isolate the extremists, as you said was your goal... CLINTON: Um-hmm. AMANPOUR: -- prevent them from going across to creating an al Qaeda state in Iraq... CLINTON: Right. AMANPOUR: -- 14 years after 9/11? CLINTON: It's very difficult, in retrospect, to say that would have prevented this. There were a lot of forces at work, as you well know. There were many different sources of -- of revenue coming into these disparate extremist elements -- Russia, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah were supporting Assad. There were already many players in this very dangerous space. [does this statement make any sense at all, Ms Clinton refuses to name the allies giving support to Salafist extremists: Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt (under Morsi), UAE, Kuwait and Qatar - Oui] But I did believe then, and I believe now, that it is important for us to know what's happening on the ground in these places. And unless you build relationships with people who you think are at least hopefully sharing some of your same goals and objectives, you lose -- you lose contact. You don't know what's happening... AMANPOUR: And this is (INAUDIBLE)... CLINTON: -- and that leaves it even more dangerous. AMANPOUR: -- your own ambassador, the person you appointed, Robert Ford, to Syria, resigned and he told me in his first interview that he did so in protest and on principle because he could no longer defend the Obama administration's policy. And we see where we are in the world because of this. I want to ask you... CLINTON: But let me just... AMANPOUR: -- should you have tried harder... (LAUGHTER) AMANPOUR: -- you were surrounded by the top national security people... CLINTON: Right. Right. AMANPOUR: -- on a mission to stop terrorism. CLINTON: Right. AMANPOUR: Should you have pushed harder? CLINTON: We pushed very hard. But as I say in my book, I believe that Harry Truman was right, the buck stops with the president. And the president had very legitimate concerns. And, you know, Robert Ford, as I mentioned earlier, was an exemplary ambassador. He did just an extraordinary job until we had to pull him out because of the danger. And I think in some of his interviews even with you, he said the State Department was pushing, pushing... AMANPOUR: The State Department, correct. CLINTON: -- pushing... AMANPOUR: -- but he said nobody else... CLINTON: That's right. AMANPOUR: -- was listening. He said the White House wasn't listening. CLINTON: Well, we -- we did, as I said, create a -- a proposal that both the CIA and the Department of Defense supported. But I want to hasten to add... AMANPOUR: Would you do that... CLINTON: -- the reason... AMANPOUR: -- would you do it in the future? CLINTON: Of course. I would always... AMANPOUR: Go back again? CLINTON: -- speak out. I would always... AMANPOUR: No, no, no. CLINTON: -- speak out... AMANPOUR: Go back again and, you know, arm and train? CLINTON: Well, I said we should have done it, you know, two plus years ago. But I want to be very clear, these are difficult, hard choices if it was so self-evident that everybody should have done this, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about what we didn't do, but we might be talking about the consequences of what we did do. So you have people making these choices with imperfect information, trying to figure out what they hope will happen, what might happen, how to guard against contingencies. So, clearly... AMANPOUR: To be fair, though -- to be fair, your own husband, President Clinton, said a couple of years ago, the longer you leave it, the more space for the bad actors. And to be fair, many of your own officials who we've just talked about, plus U.N. officials, have been warning about this backlash for a long, long time. CLINTON: Um-hmm. Yes. AMANPOUR: And most people believed that this is precisely what would happen. If terrorism and stopping terrorism is America's fundamental national security prerogative... CLINTON: Right. AMANPOUR: -- was this a failure? CLINTON: Well, I think it's too soon to tell. But let me just quickly add that originally, this was a rebellion by Syrians themselves. And it was clearly Assad's goal to turn it into a battle with terrorists. There weren't terrorists initially. And what has happened, partly because of the brutality of the Assad regime, and also the conflict -- the proxy conflict between Iran and others in the region, you had, unfortunately, money and equipment going to extremists. And so this problem was made much worse. Now, if we had gone in earlier and tried to help the so-called moderates... AMANPOUR: Right. CLINTON: -- I'm not sure that it would have turned the tide. But I believed then that it was important for us to make clear that we were going to try to support them against Assad and also fill the vacuum that would be created in that territory. AMANPOUR: Which we're witnessing right now. CLINTON: Well, and we are... AMANPOUR: I'm going to move forward... CLINTON: -- we are witnessing right now, yes. Amanpour didn't pop the question about Obama's red line and the gas attack in Ghouta, would Ms Clinton have bombed the Assad military assets and thus help the extremists to a victory in Syria?
www.boomantribune.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Had to add this part here ...on another site

And then you have the Syrian Ambassador Ford being called out on Tweeter ....

In the New Yorker interview Ford asserted: We all learned from Iraq that regime change is not the way to bring about positive political change. In the case of civil war, there needs to be negotiation between the opposition and the government. The question is how you increase the likelihood that it will succeed. And ever since Secretary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov concluded the communiqué, in June, 2012, Administration policy has failed to create the conditions necessary to succeed. Quoting the above S. Rifai responded to former ambassador Ford's assertions (emphasis added): S. Rifai @THE_47th 5:02 AM - 19 Jun 2016 That's not what u told us in mtngs in Damascus Amb @fordrs58 ..that's not the msg u conveyed Amb Ford @fordrs58 you hv had more freedom in Damascus in 2011 than most political oppo.. & throughout ur meetings, the above msg was diff You actually had the courage Amb @fordrs58 2 sit with regime officials who seemed ready 2 defect...and ur msg certainly wasn't "negotiation" Your mtgs in Abu Remmaneh, Malki, and in known dissidents houses Mr. @fordrs58, remember those? remember the promises? I can get more specific about these mtgs Mr. @fordrs58, but it is not in your interest nor mine These details are like farts in the wind Mr. Amb @fordrs58..what counts is the "Assad must go" part that u & ur president said repeatedly. Ford did not immediately respond but S. Rifai insisted S. Rifai @THE_47th 5:14 AM - 19 Jun 2016 @fordrs58 so pls clarify: u knew all along tht Obama wanted "nego w gov" bt u&him kept telling us "Assad will go"? Another "revolutionary" joins: Abdul @al_7aleem 5:36 AM - 19 Jun 2016 .@THE_47th @fordrs58 Isn't it our fault for forgetting the last 90 years of US history in all our excitement... S. Rifai @THE_47th ‏5:38 AM - 19 Jun 2016 We didn't forget as much as we hoped for change.. It's not like we had another power-player we could rely on Later on Ford responded: Robert Ford @fordrs58 10:34 AM - 19 Jun 2016 you should remember that we (US Emb & others) urged a dialogue with the Syr govt and that protests stay peaceful (Ford's tweet implies that, despite his claimed urging, the protests did not stay peaceful. He admits that the protesters, not the government, were violent.)
www.moonofalabama.org...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: St Udio

I will elaborate Dr Gerard Crabtree Genetic scientist at Stanford has documented recent mutations in the 5000 odd genes pertaining to mans intelligence,we are getting stupider. 93 million adult Americans are below a level of literacy required to successfully contribute to society, in some areas like New York 80 per cent of applicants are rejected by community college.This has been by design and yes a fundamental religion is what will keep uneducated masses in check,Democracies and Republics require informed citizens- this is no longer the case in fact a recent Microsoft study concluded the average American has a shorter attention span than a goldfish.


I dont need no research or genetic scientists to convince me that Americans are getting dumber, Donald Trumps popularity proves it all


Unimpressive. You're repeating the most overused, uneducated groupthink's insult of choice to make people think they're stupid for supporting the only guy that wants to protect Americans. All while a woman under FBI investigation is the democratic nominee.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: paxnatus
a reply to: kazanoom

No conspiracy here ......this document is based in hard fact! BY the way, this thread has NOTHING to do with Trump!

so let me assume you are a Hillary supporter...Well then you should know who and what you support...

Interested to hear your thoughts....


Pax

.Emerson document Senate testimony pdf..


I would be very interested as well, to see what ANY Hillary fan supports in her. I've yet to hear anything.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ad hominem attacks are unhelpful.

Do the organisations linked to Huma Abedin have a clearly stated aim?

Is that aim exempt from enquiry?




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

As "scary" sounding as Omar Mateef, the security guard.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
There is plenty of hardcore evidence that links Huma abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood and a lot of it has been presented.....

I have tried to keep this thread non partisan because in the end it is about ALL OF US! I came across some info last night that is quite questionable but am deciding if i should post it......Need to think about this .......

Thank you for all of your comments, replies, information and even dissent .......The information i provided esp. the Emerson document gives us a lot of answers based in hard cold fact......

I will be posting more info. very soon...

Thanks again everyone, for remaining civil while discussing a tough topic!



Pax
edit on 6/20/2016 by paxnatus because: grammar



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Great thread Pax and I hope you're doing well.
I will say however that the Muslim brotherhood and it's long tentacles which stretch all the way back to WW2 and the support of Nazi Germany is only half the problem so far as the Clintons are concerned. Yes, Islam is a major enemy of freedom and the West but the other lurking elephant in the room is Communist China.
Even though GHWBush was the first 'special envoy" to China after Kissinger it was Chinese businessmen who continually came to the White House bearing bags full of cash. It was also during the Clinton years that military and intelligence secrets were regularly being stolen by the Chinese and basically getting off scot free.
So here we have the Clintons and their best friends overseas happen to be Saudi Arabia and Communist China.
IF that doesn't raise red flags for people nothing will because they're brain dead.
Destroying the United States and erecting a one world government is the goal of the Clintons and Bushes.
Just look at the track record of lost and compromised freedoms and the destruction of the US economy and debt implosion we have taken on just since 1992. Not even the most incompetent administration could do so much damage to our economy, our people and our freedoms.
We are under attack by the very people who claim to be our leaders.
It's enough to make even agnostics wonder if these aren't indeed the end times we live in when good is evil and evil is proclaimed to be good.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ad hominem attacks are unhelpful.

Do the organisations linked to Huma Abedin have a clearly stated aim?

Is that aim exempt from enquiry?



How fortunate that I haven't made any ad hominem attacks then! The fact that you don't like having it pointed out that you're not discussing the topic, or even addressing what you opened a conversation with me specifically to address, is not ad hominem, which would be my discrediting your argument by claiming that you're mentally disturbed or something not pointing out the fallacies in your argument.

There are no organizations linked to Huma Abedin with anything aside from innuendo, religious bigotry and the grossest sort of circumstantial evidence. If there are, name them. That is and has been the point here. So far, neither you nor the OP have done anything of the sort.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Gryphon66

As "scary" sounding as Omar Mateef, the security guard.


Did you find his name scary? Hmmm. I certainly did after the fact. Totally unhinged individual.

First time I heard it pronounced though, the sound of it reminded me of Omar Sharif (who sadly died last year at 83.) He was known of course for his theatrical work but he was also a heck of a bridge player.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Bush Administration did some inexplicable things after 911.

"Who benefited from their actions?" is a valid question.


The world banking fraternity?



"Why was Saudi Arabia protected?" is another valid question.



Because the Rothschilds live there?


There are organisations openly declaring their intention to propagandise against Western Culture.

They have plenty of Money.

Asking whether Americans Politicians took some of that money in return for influence over American Policy is perfectly reasonable.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
As to "The PDF" that keeps getting touted here as the be-all-end-all of evidence (which has mostly already been cut and pasted along with the majority of the Breitbart article), let's look at the person giving the "testimony" for a moment:



Steven Emerson (born June 6, 1954) is an American journalist, author, and pundit on national security, terrorism, and Islamic extremism. Emerson is the author of six books, and co-author of two more. His television documentary Jihad in America won the 1994 George Polk Award for best television documentary, and top prize for best investigative reporting from Investigative Reporters and Editors.

He is also the Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), a data-gathering center on Islamist groups. Emerson's credibility was challenged when he made claims on television concerning the city of Birmingham which led British Prime Minister David Cameron to say that Emerson is "clearly a complete idiot."

The British broadcasting regulator Ofcom subsequently censured Fox News for airing the comments, which they characterised as "materially misleading" and "a serious breach for a current affairs programme".

Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Some of Emerson's statements related to Muslims in the US and Europe have been criticized for inaccuracies,and he has been described as a "Islamophobe" and as a discredited "terrorism expert".


low-hanging Wikipedia fruit - "Steven Emerson"

Emerson is one of those "right wing pundits" who can make any claim, substantiated or not, and certain political demographics eat it up. In regard to the horrible blunder called out by no less than Conservative PM Cameron noted above, Emerson was forced to recant his insane claims on his own website:



My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing this apology and correction for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful.


Source

Why should we take this guys word as fact again?
edit on 20-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

you got me convinced:
when McCain pleads to decency and facts it reeks!

May sound funny, but i mean it dead serious.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The OP appeared to raise far more issues than the ones you wish to limit the thread to.

Continual adjectival characterisation of opinions that differ from your own meets the definition of ad hominem.

It is a cheap rhetorical trick that might gratify but does not convince.




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: Gryphon66

The OP appeared to raise far more issues than the ones you wish to limit the thread to.




Continual adjectival characterisation of opinions that differ from your own meets the definition of ad hominem.


It is a cheap rhetorical trick that might gratify but does not convince.



I've quoted the OP's opening statement twice. How am I trying to limit the thread to anything when I AM QUOTING the OP?

And this bit:



Continual adjectival characterisation of opinions that differ from your own meets the definition of ad hominem.


Is utterly meaningless ... "adjectival characteristics of opinions that differ"? LOL.

Here are several common definitions of ad hominem:



"said of an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."




"attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."


For example, your argument has completely left the terms of this discussion and now enters the realm of the absurd.

(Notice, nothing about YOU there, just YOUR ARGUMENT.)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: Gryphon66

you got me convinced:
when McCain pleads to decency and facts it reeks!

May sound funny, but i mean it dead serious.


I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone). I'm only noting the facts. Perhaps you think that Senator McCain is "a loser" or "a traitor" as well ... but he addressed the core of the only argument being made here, to wit, that Huma Abedin's and her family are Muslim, have lived and worked in Saudi Arabia, and have known individuals involved in international efforts to advance the Islamic faith.

These facts do nothing to "connect" her (or Hillary Clinton) to 9/11, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

Neither she, nor her family, nor even their associates have ever been accused of terrorism or terrorist acts.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join